Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Mecklenburg

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SMS Mecklenburg edit

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


Another overhauled German battleship article - I'm on a little roll here. This one served with the main German fleet before World War I and saw limited service during the conflict. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of the problems affecting Schwaben also trouble her sister.

  • was fifth ship - seems to me an article is missing
    • Oops, good catch.
  • The ominous "naval boilers" appear again - according to Gröner, Mecklenburg was fitted with Thornycroft boilers
    • Fixed.
  • Torpedo tubes again - how could they pose a problem if they were above the waterline?
    • Fixed.
  • "Schichau" as builder and "yard number 676" is probably copied from Wettin - should be Vulcan, Stettin and #248. And "D" should be "F".
    • Good catch.
  • "Skagen" is the northern tip of Denmark - should probably read Skagerak
    • Fixed.
  • "3.3." is the German equivalent of 3 March
    • Yeah, I just got in the German mindset while I was translating that.
  • Was Mecklenburg really repaired in Wilhelmshaven, not Kiel, after her grounding? If so, how did she get there?
    • That's what Hildebrand et. al. says - "Die dort festgestellte beträchtliche Einbeulung des Schiffsbodens wurde anschließend bis zum 20. 4. auf der K. W. Wilhelmshaven beseitigt." Mecklenburg did steam from Hatters Rev to Kiel under her own power, so presumably she could have made it to Wilhelmshaven.

Since I am not a native speaker, I leave the style issues alone. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ÄDA. Parsecboy (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, it looks pretty good to me, I only have a few comments:

  • in the lead: "Laid down in 1899", but the body and the infobox say "15 May 1900"
    • Fixed.
  • in the lead: "at the AG Vulcan shipyard in Stettin", but in the body "at the AG Vulcan in Danzig"
    • Stettin is right.
  • Gardiner et al appears in the References, but doesn't appear to be cited
    • Oh, that citation fell out in the rewrite.
  • "File:North and Baltic Seas, 1911.png": I think this needs a US licence as well as the one that is currently in use. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, yes, good catch. Thanks for your review. Parsecboy (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Link ihp in the infobox
  • Clarify that triple-expansion engines are steam engines in the infobox and main body. And be sure to hyphenate triple expansion.
    • Missing the hyphenation.
      • Added.
  • Add # of boilers and engines to the infobox.
  • Mecklenburg was 126.8 m (416 ft) long overall and had a beam of 22.8 m (75 ft) and a draft of 7.95 m (26.1 ft) forward. Awkward with the triple "and"
  • Link magazine
  • "Armament system" is awkward. Howzabout weapons or some such? And the first sentence of that para should be clarified with "main" armament.
    • Forgot "main".
      • Fixed.
  • Capitalize "king"
  • The info on the torpedo accident is a bit ambiguous. Was it some kind of torpedo warhead or air flask explosion? Please elucidate if at all possible.
    • Hildebrand et. al. aren't clear, unfortunately.
      • Pity.
  • Hyphenate worn out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab link [1] (no action req'd).
    • External links checks out [2] (no action req'd).
    • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [3] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
    • Images all appear to be PD and have req'd info, captions look ok (no action req'd).
    • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [4] (no action req'd).
    • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
    • This is a little repetitive: "Mecklenburg was launched on 9 November 1901, the last ship of her class to be launched. Her launching..." (launched twice in the same sentence and again in the next). Perhaps reword?
      • See how it reads now.
    • Ehrhard Schmidt should probably be wikilinked.
      • Added.
    • Otherwise looks very good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/SMS_Mecklenburg&oldid=1075714228"